thedrifter
09-09-07, 06:20 PM
Deputy defense secretary lists goals for military
By John T. Bennett - jbennett@militarytimes.com
Posted : September 17, 2007
Gordon England, U.S. deputy defense secretary, has put a list of powerful military officials on notice, writing in an Aug. 9 memo that they must make substantial progress on 25 wide-ranging goals.
But some Pentagon observers say the objectives should be prioritized, and they wonder about the absence of several major acquisition programs.
“The end objective is to complete or advance to a major milestone each of these initiatives and also to have them institutionalized by December 2008,” England wrote to 26 top military commanders and defense officials. “Completing these initiatives by the end of next year will be greatly beneficial to the next management team and to our military forces.”
The deadline set by England is one month before the next president takes office.
Several observers said the timing reflects the Bush administration’s efforts to ensure that each of the efforts are advanced enough that it would be difficult for the next administration — especially if it’s a Democratic one — to “just kill it,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va.
“They are afraid any loose ends they don’t tie up will never be sewn up” by the next administration, he said.
Thompson and others were surprised that England mentioned only one weapon program: the high-profile Mine Resistant Ambush Protected armored vehicle.
“It’s more noteworthy for what’s not on there,” Thompson said. “The most crucial things for the [administration’s] transformation push were big-ticket programs. It really reflects the degree to which transformation has waned for this administration.”
The goals are listed in four categories:
• Prevail in the global war on terrorism.
• Bolster joint war-fighting capabilities.
• “Focus on people.”
• Improve the Pentagon’s “enterprise management” processes.
Reuters first reported on the specifics of the memo Aug. 20.
In the first group, England calls on the military to carry out several much-anticipated projects, including the coming report from U.S. Central Command officials on Iraq, the creation of a “Near East-South Asia security cooperation strategy,” the rapid fielding of MRAPs and continued support for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.
The enterprise management group also contains initiatives that some said could influence major defense acquisition programs. These goals order the creation of a system to prioritize and align “resources to joint capability demands,” “expand capability portfolio management,” improve the department’s business systems and “pursue targeted acquisition reforms.”
The word Iraq makes only two appearances on the list, but several former officials and analysts agreed that conflict’s impact is clear throughout the list.
“Iraq has just changed everything and the memo shows that,” Thompson said.
The memo drew criticisms from some who thought the goals should have been ranked in a way that made clear which are most important to show progress on before Dec. 31, 2008.
“What here is really the most important? I don’t have one way to measure that,” one former defense official said. “You have to make your priorities within the priorities clear.”
But Thompson said the goals are “all worthwhile things.”
John Handy, a retired Air Force general and former U.S. Transportation Command chief, agreed the list is aimed at stressing the need to give high-priority efforts life after Bush leaves Washington in January 2009, but he called the slate of goals “a disappointment.”
After reviewing England’s memo, Handy said it struck him as “a list of ‘let’s solve world hunger’ — these are things we’ve been doing for a while and, frankly, should be doing.” The goals were compiled, Handy said, by “taking what is already being done and putting them on one sheet of paper.”
Handy also questioned why a direction to implement the 2006 Base Closure and Realignment Commission’s recommendations was on the list. That is part of the “focus on people” category.
“By law, you have to do that anyway,” Handy said. “I mean, what the hell?”
Bush was briefed on the memo earlier, England wrote, calling the discussion with the president “interactive and positive.”
Ellie
By John T. Bennett - jbennett@militarytimes.com
Posted : September 17, 2007
Gordon England, U.S. deputy defense secretary, has put a list of powerful military officials on notice, writing in an Aug. 9 memo that they must make substantial progress on 25 wide-ranging goals.
But some Pentagon observers say the objectives should be prioritized, and they wonder about the absence of several major acquisition programs.
“The end objective is to complete or advance to a major milestone each of these initiatives and also to have them institutionalized by December 2008,” England wrote to 26 top military commanders and defense officials. “Completing these initiatives by the end of next year will be greatly beneficial to the next management team and to our military forces.”
The deadline set by England is one month before the next president takes office.
Several observers said the timing reflects the Bush administration’s efforts to ensure that each of the efforts are advanced enough that it would be difficult for the next administration — especially if it’s a Democratic one — to “just kill it,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, Arlington, Va.
“They are afraid any loose ends they don’t tie up will never be sewn up” by the next administration, he said.
Thompson and others were surprised that England mentioned only one weapon program: the high-profile Mine Resistant Ambush Protected armored vehicle.
“It’s more noteworthy for what’s not on there,” Thompson said. “The most crucial things for the [administration’s] transformation push were big-ticket programs. It really reflects the degree to which transformation has waned for this administration.”
The goals are listed in four categories:
• Prevail in the global war on terrorism.
• Bolster joint war-fighting capabilities.
• “Focus on people.”
• Improve the Pentagon’s “enterprise management” processes.
Reuters first reported on the specifics of the memo Aug. 20.
In the first group, England calls on the military to carry out several much-anticipated projects, including the coming report from U.S. Central Command officials on Iraq, the creation of a “Near East-South Asia security cooperation strategy,” the rapid fielding of MRAPs and continued support for the Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization.
The enterprise management group also contains initiatives that some said could influence major defense acquisition programs. These goals order the creation of a system to prioritize and align “resources to joint capability demands,” “expand capability portfolio management,” improve the department’s business systems and “pursue targeted acquisition reforms.”
The word Iraq makes only two appearances on the list, but several former officials and analysts agreed that conflict’s impact is clear throughout the list.
“Iraq has just changed everything and the memo shows that,” Thompson said.
The memo drew criticisms from some who thought the goals should have been ranked in a way that made clear which are most important to show progress on before Dec. 31, 2008.
“What here is really the most important? I don’t have one way to measure that,” one former defense official said. “You have to make your priorities within the priorities clear.”
But Thompson said the goals are “all worthwhile things.”
John Handy, a retired Air Force general and former U.S. Transportation Command chief, agreed the list is aimed at stressing the need to give high-priority efforts life after Bush leaves Washington in January 2009, but he called the slate of goals “a disappointment.”
After reviewing England’s memo, Handy said it struck him as “a list of ‘let’s solve world hunger’ — these are things we’ve been doing for a while and, frankly, should be doing.” The goals were compiled, Handy said, by “taking what is already being done and putting them on one sheet of paper.”
Handy also questioned why a direction to implement the 2006 Base Closure and Realignment Commission’s recommendations was on the list. That is part of the “focus on people” category.
“By law, you have to do that anyway,” Handy said. “I mean, what the hell?”
Bush was briefed on the memo earlier, England wrote, calling the discussion with the president “interactive and positive.”
Ellie